Sunday, July 27, 2008

The Action Mutant…wants him some crank (and he’s not talking about the movie, either!).

Crank

review by Joe Burrows

Perspective:The previous opening weekend success of the new Batman feature The Dark Knight (you know, $155 million opening weekend…largest opening weekend in history) shows that market saturation happens to work every so often. The weekend also showed that there is a science to the money making side of cinema that benefits everyone. Think about it…put The Dark Knight in 4,400 theaters because you know they’ll show up. Your girlfriend doesn’t want to sit through 2 ½ hours of it, so she goes to see Mamma Mia! (which garnered the biggest opening weekend for a Musical film). And you don’t want your already drunk friend to ruin your enjoyment, so you drop him off to see Space Chimps (ok, you explain it’s gross to me). I plan to see TDK as soon as the lines calm down so I can’t speculate on certain things (though it’s more than likely that a certain Mr. Ledger’s death and the hype surrounding his last completed performance helped bring the masses). Nonetheless, when I first saw the initial stills of Ledger’s Joker in the jail cell on Fangoria’s cover, I knew that it would be career defining stuff. I just hope that the Academy doesn’t fall over themselves in awarding a nomination (or more) to the guy just because he died. I won’t go on record and say whether he deserves the nod or not because I haven’t seen said performance but the Oscars has become such a farce over the years that it wouldn’t surprise me if the board decided to nominate him for the sole purpose of “placating a still mourning audience”. Sorry if I sound cynical but look at the Academy’s track record in overlooking performances in more “fan friendly” fare and tell me if it doesn’t make sense.

The Plot, as it was:Jason Statham (The Transporter, War) stars as Chev Chelios, a hitman that awakes one day to find out he’s been poisoned by crime boss Verona (Jose Pablo Cantillo) with the deadly “Beijing Cocktail”. The serum cuts off responses to the adrenal glands, meaning that the Chevmeister is dead if is heart rate drops past the below acceptable level. Along with trying to square up things with his flighty girlfriend Eve (Amy Smart), Chev decides to make his last few hours on earth count by getting revenge on Verona and his crew and trying to stave off the effects of the cocktail with tips from his personal chemist Doc Miles (Dwight Yoakam). Yes, it be crazy time!

Don’t shoot me…I’m only the reviewer!:Ballsy. That’s the kind of entertainment Crank churns out during its 87 minute run time (93 if you see the Director’s Cut). With a film that has its hero engaging in the most illogical drive through a mall since The Blues Brothers, headbanging to “Achy, Breaky Heart” and getting high off of nasal spray, you know the filmmakers aren’t afraid to throw everything against the wall. To their credit, director/writer team Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor get the plot out of the way within…oh, three minutes and frees up the rest of the time for a non-stop chase. The film has style shooting out of its pores, with everything from arcade game style opening graphics, crazy edits & zooms and even a nod to Google Earth (between the shaky camerawork, car thievery and locations pointed out in bold letters, this may be the closest a film gets to resembling the hit video game Grand Theft Auto). It would seem like its too much sizzle and very little steak in Crank but so much is thrown into the mix that very few can argue they haven’t gotten their worth in entertainment. Statham further cements his foothold amongst the last spots for Hollywood Action badasses by bringing that right level of menace and charm to his role. His character isn’t exactly the most likable bastard but his rouge nature makes him somewhat easier to root for. Yoakam (whom I did not recognize at first, in playing a yuppie-esque doctor) makes for quite the colorful character and there are good comic moments involving Statham and Smart but it is admittedly all about the Action here. Never boring, Crank’s biggest fault is probably it’s (to put it kindly) flawed logic. The setup puts Chelios in several eye rolling situations (including the much debated climax….especially debated since there is a sequel in the works) but if you can take the fact that the film is basically one big, guy pleasing, video game like crime tale then you are certain to enjoy Crank more than the usual, fair weather movie-goer. (Note: Along with its several video game references, Crank’s opening & closing theme is Quiet Riot’s “Metal Health (Bang Your Head)”. How can you not love that?)

Character/Supporting Actor Sighting!:- Chester Bennington, the frontman for the band Linkin Park, is the stoner in the hospital lobby.

Body Count/Violence: 23. It takes a while for the bodies to pile up but Crank manages to be as gory as it is fast paced. Bloody gunplay, brawling, broken necks and limbs, big guys being used as shields for grenades, meat cleaver use, asphyxiation, hand thrust into a sewing machine, car crashes and drug use are all on the menu.

Sexuality/Nudity: If it’s not Amy Smart in those tight corduroy pants in Rat Race (hey, I had to derive some sort of enjoyment from that stinker) then it’s her in boyshort panties here. She and Statham have probably the goofiest sex scene in recent film history, which I won’t give away (let’s just say it gives new meaning to “spectator sport”). Smart’s Eve also gives Chev some extra motivation during a car chase (you figure it out!). There’s also a scene involving two topless masseuses and other scenes with topless women at a pool and a dance club, as well as a glimpse of a photo involving lesbian action. There’s also Statham running the streets in a hospital gown, periodically showing his behind. And I won’t even mention what too much epinephrine apparently does to Chev.

Language/Dialogue: Pretty profane, with the F bomb being dropped nearly 100 times (among other terms).

How bad was it?:Critics’ view of Crank seemed to generally have to do with whether they could tolerate the A.D.D.-like show put forth for them. Most enjoyed it for what it is, with some going 50/50 on it and a few outright trashing (I guess they were expecting a harrowing, drug drama?).

Did it make the studio’s day?:Lions Gate Films, which has been specializing in the low budget Action/Horror features over the past five years, financed Crank for $12 million. Released on 9/1/06, it finished the Labor Day weekend in 2nd place with $12.9 million behind the Mark Wahlberg starrer Invincible. It only stayed in the top 10 another two weeks but it ended its run a modest sleeper with a gross of $27.8 million (as well as $16.9 million overseas). It certainly must have pleased LGF, as a sequel is set to be released 4/17/09.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Perspective:It somewhat amazes me that it took so long for some people to get the point of Bret Easton Ellis’ 1991 novel American Psycho. Then again, it really doesn’t surprise me. I mean, all of the evidence of excess on top of excess (the calling card of the “decadent decade”) is staring the reader right in the face in the form of Bateman, a character that’s so real yet blazingly over the top in nature. So, how does everyone take the satire of a time that happened not too long ago at all? Well, critics take the extreme violence of the story VERY seriously and that (of course) is all that anyone can seem to focus on. On top of that sundae is the fact that the unspeakable acts of violence mainly happen toward women, which sent every liberal and feminist falling over themselves with misguided rage. Never mind the fact that the men are portrayed as successful, present day Neanderthals with block-like cell phones & mousse covered hair. While I’ll admit that the torture in AP’s novel form is a mix of Caligula & Friday the 13th and even makes me a tad uneasy, the point was (of course) totally lost on everyone. Simon & Schuster (the novel’s original publisher) dumped the book due to its content and it was eventually released by Vintage Books, selling 250,000 copies its first year on shelves. Life went on. People killed other people, whether it had anything to do with the book or not & regardless of gender. And the highest rated shows on MTV, E! & VH1 have to do with celebrities and their opulent lifestyles, which distracts people from the real problems of the world. Yeah. Seventeen years later and how little shit has changed, eh? (Note: This is a review of the 101 minute, Uncut version, as opposed to the R rated version that is 18 seconds shorter in duration.)

The Plot, as it was:Christian Bale (3:10 to Yuma, The Dark Knight) is Patrick Bateman, a stock broker living the high life in 1987 Manhattan. He has a nubile, vapid fiancée (Reese Witherspoon), a serpentine, high-rise apartment and the latest in facial care products and pop music CDs. However, Patrick seems to lack certain things (such as a soul…oh, and the best business card amongst his co-workers) and these minute inanities aid in his outside-of-work hobby…serial killing! After offing company upstart Paul Allen (Jared Leto), Bateman is intermittently questioned by detective Donald Kimball (Wilem Dafoe) and starts to lose his grip on the homicidal world he’s drudged up. The question isn’t whether Patrick will stop killing (or be stopped) but…does anyone care?

Don’t shoot me…I’m only the reviewer!:Much like the book, the movie American Psycho is a hard piece of satire to really nail down. However, director/writer Mary Harron (The Notorious Bettie Page) & co-writer Guinevere Turner (Go Fish) did the impossible (according to many, since the majority of the novel is practically unfilmable due to its violent content) and not only made the film but retained the dark, cynical mood of the book without going overboard with said carnage. Open minds will see a seriously (albeit sardonic) funny film that skewers the 80s pop culture landscape (Bateman explaining the work of musical acts from Huey Lewis & The News to Whitney Houston is tearfully hilarious) without being pretentious about it. All of the 80s trappings are here (greed, cocaine in the restrooms, inflated self-importance, etc.) and all of the little digs at the era make it just that much better. The hotly discussed violence is handled smartly, with much of it being implied but coming off more gruesome due to the moody vibe it’s juxtaposed to. Everyone plays their parts commendably but Bale is the show, the whole show and nothing but the show here. The term “career making performance” is usually tossed around liberally but Bale goes so balls out with his portrayal of Bateman that it’s almost impossible any other performance could reach it in scale. In Bale’s capable hands, Bateman is neurotic, comically repulsive, hilariously vain and doubly disturbed, all without falling into characterature. His mood swings are so abrupt and chillingly sudden that it really takes the viewer for a great ride. One minute, Patrick’s swinging an axe at someone’s face and a few shots later, he’s listening to Chris De Burgh’s “Lady in Red” without a care in the world! His descent into madness is certain to cause some furrowed brows and confusion but those that truly follow the film’s satire tinged heart will appreciate an ambiguous ending that resembles the great films of the 70s. In other words, American Psycho is an underrated, underappreciated classic and that is apropos, considering how misunderstood the material was (and seemingly, will always be).

Body Count/Violence: 17. As stated previously, the book version of AP COULD NOT be filmed as is. Its grotesque visions of torture and sadism would have most likely earned it a high NC-17, if not higher (not to mention the book’s 384 page duration, as I couldn’t imagine too many people taking 3+ hours of blood & guts). As is, the film version is no where near as violent but does include its fair share of moments. Patrick wastes people in a number of fashions, whether it is shooting, stabbing, an ax to the face or a (very memorable) use of a chainsaw. Several bloody, after-the-fact corpses, an already severed head and a stomped down dog are also included but it’s interesting to state that the impact of most of these acts is rarely shown, leaving only the gory aftereffects and the audience’s imagination to fill stuff in.

Sexuality/Nudity: Oddly enough, it’s the film’s sexual content that almost caused it to be rated NC-17 originally. Patrick’s a kinky boy and it shows, with him watching a porno with two topless ladies going at each other. Bale’s sculpted abs and posterior are on showcase in many shots. There’s also a scene of two other women rubbing & kissing each other and three other sex scenes, though the one with Patrick essentially directing two call girls in filmed sex is more hilarious than erotic. Cara Seymour (Christie, the blond call girl) is nude in a bathtub and is nude (along with Bale & Krista Sutton) in the filmed three way. And who can forget a naked Bateman, chasing a victim down and having his crotch only obscured with a running chainsaw? Subtle? No. Glorious? Yes.

Language/Dialogue:Fairly strong & frankly sexual in some dialogue. Oh, and people get angry if you interrupt them while they snort coke. Who wouldn’t?

How bad was it?:Most critics heaped a great deal of praise towards the director and star of tackling such a combustible project and making it a masterwork. There were a few squeaky wheels that either felt it wasn’t controversial enough in being more faithful to the book’s content or was just too mean spirited to enjoy it. Once again, critics misinterpret good satire (which I’m sure is why Burt Reynolds’ career dried up in the 80s).

Did it make the studio’s day?:After many years of false starts, directorial changes and casting shifts (you know, even after The Departed, I still couldn’t buy Leo DiCaprio as Patrick Bateman), Lions Gate Films produced American Psycho for $7 million and released it on 4/14/00. It turned in a respectful 7th place rake of $5 million its first weekend and despite it falling out of the top 10 the following week, it had enough juice to stay in theaters for another three months. AmericanPsycho was a sleeper hit, grossing $15.1 million (and $19.2 million overseas, equaling $34.3 million worldwide) and becoming a solid hit on DVD.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

The Action Mutant…says there’s no crying in robotic police protection!

Robocop 3

review by Joe Burrows

Perspective:Let’s play armchair movie tycoon for a sec. You just had a sequel to a pretty successful Sci-Fi/Action film perform poorly at the B.O. Your production company, despite distributing the last two Oscar winners for Best Picture, is heading down the bankruptcy toilet and there’s no way to stop it. Your follow up to that sequel is coming up. How do you make it?

A) Just like the first one and give the core fans something to sink into?B) Change things around to support the natural progression of the characters and make it a new vision that will reach more people, while maintaining the first one’s spirit?C) Shoot totally for the kid market, flip off everything that made the first film such a hit and watch it go down in flames?

If you really don’t know the answer to this….just stop…just stop now. Go work for MGM, though. By all means!

The Plot, as it was:The beginning of the third installment shows that OCP’s plans to create a new city in place of Detroit are in full swing with the construction of Delta City. The new CEO (Rip Torn, one of the greatest stage names ever!) has ordered a special “Rehab” squad of officers, led by the sadistic McDaggett (John Castle), to force people off of their property so the building can continue and OCP’s deal with the Kanemitsu corporation can commence. The Rehab squad runs into a determined group of resistance and is out for extra help to rid them. Meanwhile, Robocop/Murphy (Robert Burke) disobeys an important order and is again in line for reprogramming. When a tragedy hits close to Robo, he is thrust to the side of the resistance and is out for some Robo-revenge!

Don’t shoot me…I’m only the reviewer!:Most fans like to look at this as the beginning stage of the raping of the Robocop concept (though this wasn’t the finishing touch, as there were two TV series and miniseries to follow this). The frustrating thing is that this could have been a worthy enough addition to the franchise had a few hands been absent from the pot. Firstly, whoever decided to make this PG-13 and edible for the masses is a fucking dolt and deserves a good portion of the drubbing. Not only is this an exercise in bloodless carnage (and therefore lacking the visceral pop that the first two installments possessed) but it takes a bad cue from T2: Judgment Day and has Robo dulled down for the kid friendly set by having a little kid named Nikko (Remy Ryan) intermittently help him out of jams and wax philosophical with him. Everything about this feels generic & comic book-lite and at least the second half the blame has to go to writers Frank Miller (the original scribe for Robocop 2) & Fred Dekker (who directs here, as well). The villains are overly broad and stereotypical to the point that I was wondering if the story was being deliberately sabotaged. Between McDaggett’s Nazi-esque regime and the pair or Android Otomos (the ninja android fighters sent out by Kanemitsu to destroy Robocop), I was halfway expecting our metallic hero to come out for his final battle draped in the American flag and jab the flag into a mountain of dead bodies, a la Iwo Jima. There are some good elements here, mainly in the form of a game supporting cast (Jill Hennessy as a rogue scientist, Bradley Whitford as his usual yuppie slimeball self, CCH Pounder, Daniel Von Bargen & Stephen Root as the main resistance members). Burke doesn’t have much to do other than being a placeholder in the franchise but he does well with what he’s given. Nancy Allen (Lewis) shows up yet again but doesn’t stick around any longer than she has to (look in the film’s trivia section at IMDB, if you don’t mind a spoiler…smart move!). As mentioned in other reviews, its not that there isn’t fun to be had from Robocop 3. The familiar Basil Poledouris score is there, several bravura moments take place and the flick is never boring. It’s just…well, it’s like a stripper coming to a bachelor party and forgetting the whipped cream and party favors. It’s all good and everything but it didn’t have the elements that could have made it so much more. “Not with a bang, but with a whimper” – T.S. Eliot.

Body Count/Violence: 36. Despite the moderate number, this was dryer than the humor of one Steven Wright (“I tried to hang myself with bungee cord. I kept almost dying.”). There are plenty of large scale explosions, fighting, shooting, car mayhem, neck breaking, stabbing, (implied) suicide and robot dismemberment. The frequency of the carnage is equal to that of the first two in the series, just minus the juice.

Sexuality/Nudity: None.

Language/Dialogue: Some mild obscenities and nothing else.

How bad was it?: Most critics trash this effort the most out of the three, though it’s not like it isn’t well deserved or anything. “Tiresome”, “run of the mill” and “Roboflop 3” are terms used more than often in the reviews you will read. Ebert (rating it at *1/2) pretty much said that while some characters like James Bond can go on forever, there’s “…only so much you can do with a creature who is half-man, half-machine. Who walks like a child's toy.” That last quote is pretty ironic, considering its dumbing down for the Toys ‘R Us set.

Did it make the studio’s day?: After filming in the spring of 1991, Robocop 3 sat on Orion Pictures’ proverbial shelf as the studio was undergoing bankruptcy (they had racked up losses tantamount to $690 million by November 1991!). The film got its release a little over two years after it wrapped up, debuting on 11/5/93 and bombing with an opening weekend gross of $4.3 million. Produced for $22 million, Robocop 3 sputtered out a total gross of $10.7 million; its performance effectively killing the franchise for years to come. (Note: There is a Robocop “project in development” listed on IMDB for 2010. Prepare to shudder.)